Order No. 79 dt. 10/05/2018
The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainants for the purpose of availing a tour programme to Dubai contacted the o.p. no.1 M/s. The Travel People and others and as per the direction of o.p. no.1 and their associates the complainants paid the money for the service of Dubai package tour for 2 adult persons including return air fare, visa, hotel, etc. The complainants paid the money to o.ps. phase by phase and as per the direction of employee of o.p. no.1 the date for the tour was changed and subsequently date was changed to 26.2.05, though the complainant had the other programme during the period of the said travel, but in order to avail the tour programme the complainants agreed to change of dates. Accordingly the complainants paid the amount to o.p. no.1. The complainants on 25.2.05 got the entry permit and hotel confirmation and after going through the documents the complainant noticed that there was a difference in the date of the complainants’ entry permit and the wrong passport number in the entry permit was also made which brought to the notice of o.p. no.1, but he was assured that there will be no problem on reaching at Dubai, since the representative of the said o.p. no.1 will made all sorts of arrangements. But on reaching Dubai the complainants were not allowed to leave Dubai Airport, as a result of which the complainants had to stay at the airport. The complainant could not get any assistance from o.p. no.1 and since the date of return journey was fixed on 1.3.05 and for having the visa for one day the complainants had to pay extra amount which the complainants failed to provide and the complainants ultimately had no other choice, but to return back on the same day i.e. Sunday from Dubai after purchasing new air tickets. The complainants paid an amount of Rs.19,448/- for the purpose of purchasing the air tickets. Even after arrival at Mumbai Airport the complainants were again refused to re-entry in India as the name of the flight was not mentioned in the passport. On 27.2.05 the complainants had to stay at international airport zone and they had to pay further amount towards hotel expenses. Subsequently, the complainants had to purchase air tickets from Mumbai to Kolkata and incurred an expenses of Rs.14,042/- and left Mumbai for Kolkata. It has also been alleged by the complainants that due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. the complainants suffered loss and injury. On the basis of the said fact the complainants filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to pay all the amount of Rs.95,509/- as well as compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and litigation cost.
The o.p. nos.1 to 3 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that on 4.1.05 the complainant no.1 approached the o.p. no.1 for booking and issuance of 2 tickets on Gulf Air and o.p. no.1 made necessary booking and informed the complainant no.1 regarding the fare of the said tour programme amounting to Rs.35,282/-. The complainant no.1 paid Rs.2000/- on 5.1.05 and further paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 7.1.05. The o.p. no.1 continuously asked for the balance payment, but the complainant no.1 failed to arrange money and avoided the o.p. no.1 for more than one month. The complainants requested the o.p. no.1 for booking of 3 nights at hotel in dubai and o.ps. also booked the hotel as per the complainants’ requirement and selection in Dubai. The complainants were informed about the new charges, but the complainants avoided to pay the amount. On the basis of the said fact it was stated by o.ps. that the balance outstanding to the credit of the complainants was Rs.45,140/-. The o.ps. were continuously harassed by the complainants and there was no agreement between the complainants and o.ps. that they will make arrangement for visa and for other necessary documents for the said travel of the complainants. The case filed by the complainants is a fictitious one and o.ps. cannot be held liable for any payment.
In spite of receipt of notice the o.p. no.4 did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the o.p. no.4.
The o.p. no.5 was made an added party and contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that o.p. no.5 has no connection with the complainants’ business and o.p. no.5 never accepted any money from the complainants, thereby the complainants cannot be said to be consumers and no service was provided by o.p. no.5, therefore the question of deficiency in service against the o.p. no.5 never arose. On the basis of the said fact o.p. no.5 prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainants availed the service of o.ps.?
- Whether o.p. no.5 can be held liable for the lapse faced by the complainants in the said tour programme?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainants argued that o.p. no.1 had taken money for the service of Dubai package tour for 2 adult persons including air fare, visa, hotel booking, etc. The o.ps. claimed that they are engaged for only purchase or air tickets and hotel booking. The only point to be taken consideration whether the complainants contacted for Dubai package tour including obtaining of visa, permit for Dubai. The complainants categorically stated that o.p. no.4, the employee of o.p. no.1, would make arrangement for the said tour including providing of visa and other necessary documents. On being convinced through the representative of o.p. no.1 the complainants agreed to avail the tour programme and also paid the amount. The complainants were provided with the entry permit and hotel confirmation voucher. On perusal of the documents the complainant no.1 raised the objection regarding the discrepancy in the mentioning of the passport number which was pointed out to the complainants by o.ps. But o.ps. assured that everything will be resolved after reaching at Dubai. But on reaching Dubai the complainants were not allowed to get entry in Dubai and the complainants had to return to India after purchasing further tickets and lot of trouble they had to face for which the complainants filed this case. In view of such perspective ld. lawyer for the complainants argued that there was deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and the complainants will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
O.p. nos.1 to 3 submitted that on 4.1.05 the complainant no.1 approached the o.p. no.1 for booking and issuance of 2 tickets on Gulf Air and o.p. no.1 made necessary booking and informed the complainant no.1 regarding the fare of the said tour programme amounting to Rs.35,282/-. The complainant no.1 paid Rs.2000/- on 5.1.05 and further paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 7.1.05. The o.p. no.1 continuously asked for the balance payment, but the complainant no.1 failed to arrange money and avoided the o.p. no.1 for more than one month. The complainants requested the o.p. no.1 for booking of 3 nights at hotel in dubai and o.ps. also booked the hotel as per the complainants’ requirement and selection in Dubai. The complainants were informed about the new charges, but the complainants avoided to pay the amount. On the basis of the said fact it was stated by o.ps. that the balance outstanding to the credit of the complainants was Rs.45,140/-. The o.ps. were continuously harassed by the complainants and there was no agreement between the complainants and o.ps. that they will make arrangement for visa and for other necessary documents for the said travel of the complainants. The case filed by the complainants is a fictitious one and o.ps. cannot be held liable for any payment.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.5 argued that after appearing in the said case o.p. no.5 filed a petition praying for non maintainability of the case and this Forum earlier rejected the petition, against the said order a revisional application was filed and the same was dismissed. Ld. lawyer for o.p. no.5 emphatically argued the complainants cannot file a single document wherefrom it can be found that the complainants paid any amount to o.p. no.5 and therefore, there was no relationship between the complainants and o.p. no.5 and the complainants cannot be consumers of o.p. no.5. Thereby, the case proceeded against o.p. no.5 is not maintainable and there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.5. On the basis of the said fact o.p. no.5 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainants availed the tour programme conducted by o.p. no.1. It appears from the materials on record that the complainants paid the amount phase by phase to o.ps. and o.ps. provided the documents to the complainants for availing the tour programme. But unfortunately while the complainants reached at Dubai Airport and on that date they were not allowed to get entry in Dubai for which the complainants had to stay in the airport and purchase tickets and after incurring huge expenses they had to return to India. It appears from the record that o.p. no.5 suo moto appeared on the date of hearing of the case and the date for hearing of the case was fixed on 23.9.10. Since o.p. nos.1 to 3 were not proceeding further, therefore the case was fixed for ex parte hearing on 23.9.10. The o.p. no.5 has good connection with the case and they are well connected with the partners of o.p. no.1. Moreover, from the materials on record it appears that one lawyer appeared on behalf of o.p. nos.1 to 3 submitted that o.p. no.5 will be representing and conducting the case on behalf of o.p. no.1 as the o.p. no.1 stopped the business for the last 2 years. The o.p. no.5 was added as a party on the basis of the said submission since the existence of o.p. no.1 has already ceased to exist and o.p. no.5 has taken the labiality of the said defunct o.p. no.1, thereby the claim made by o.p. no.5 that they have no liability since no consideration was paid by the complainants to o.p. no.5 cannot be accepted. It appears from the materials on record that the partners of o.p. no. 1 are the partners of o.p. no.5. Now the o.p. nos.1 to others failed to appear during the hearing of the case and in order to avoid the payment of the money as well as compensation o.p. no.5 has taken this plea that they cannot be held responsible for the liability of o.p. no.1 and o. no.5 did not accept any money from the complainants. It appears from the materials on record that the complainants in spite of payment of huge amount to o.p. no.1 which was subsequently taken over by o.p. no.5, the complainants suffered financial loss as well as mental agony and as such, the complainants will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.04/2006 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. no.5 and dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p. nos.1 to 3 and dismissed ex parte without cost against the o.p. no.4. The o.p. no.5 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.95,509/- (Rupees ninety five thousand five hundred nine) only to the complainants as well as compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
